Politicians and civil servants round the world share the view that voters are always unhappy (and ungrateful). From Tony Blair to Dr. Mahathir, politicians grumble that people are never happy for the good things that the government does for them. Voters always want more.
One explanation for their disgruntled responses is that politicians are often wrong. Things are actually bad, people believe. Take the present economic situation. Many Singaporeans feel that the government statistics and statements, and media reporting do not reflect correctly the reality of everyday life.
The other explanation for this unhappiness is that it all has to do with rising expectations. But there is more it seems-- it also has to do with wanting to be better-off than others.
Lord Layard, an eminent British economist, explained in a series of lectures in London in 2003 that we are often more concerned about our income relative to others' than about our absolute income.
Layard quotes a Harvard University study that showed that people were happy with less, if it meant others were worse off. In the study, students at Harvard were asked whether they would prefer (a) $50,000 a year while others got half that or (b) $100,000 a year while others got twice as much. A majority chose (a).
“Many other studies have come to the conclusion that people care about other peoples’ incomes as well as their own. We are all upset when others get a raise but we do not. And the only situation where we might happily accept a pay cut is when others do the same,” Layard said.
Our behaviour at bonus or pay-rise time shows that Layard is onto something here. Our efforts to make ourselves happier by working harder so as to earn more and spend more are often self-defeating because others are also earning and spending more. We do not get much happier and neither do others. In fact, working harder in order to be wealthier could make us unhappier if we do not have enough spare time.
While people value their income in relation to that of others, this does not seem to be true of their leisure time. Interestingly, rivalry over income does not extend to leisure as the same Harvard study shows. Students were also asked to choose between (c) two weeks' holiday, while others have only one week and (d) four weeks' holiday while others get eight. A clear majority preferred (d).
What has all this to do with Singapore?
It may explain why in good times, with the economy roaring ahead, bulls charging and property prices soaring, most Singaporeans are never happy, but are instead always grumbling and moaning. This is despite the government's attempts to put into practice Bentham's utilitarian principles -- “The good society is the one where people are happiest. And the right action is the one which produces the greatest happiness.”
Most Singaporeans have a more or less equal standard of living. Yes, there are some very rich people and some very poor people. But most Singaporeans live in almost similar HDB flats, take the same form of transport and so on. This means most Singaporeans know no one among their peers who is worse off then they are.
Perhaps the owners of private condominiums can feel better off than their friends in HDB flats; five-room HDB flat-owners can sneer at four-room flat-owners and so on.
But ultimately, most Singaporeans are working hard so that they can maintain their lifestyles. They therefore have less leisure time, which may make them unhappier.
Add to that the feeling that most foreigners working here have better standards of living than locals; I'm surprised that Singaporeans are not rioting in unhappiness.
So how do we make ourselves happy?
A few years ago, when the Singapore economy was suffering from SARS, I was surprised to read that a journalist (who is usually full of sense) claimed she needed S$5000 a month to retire on, and went on to list her needs. Then there was another journalist (that I thought highly of) telling us that about her expensive clothes and undergarments.
Wonder how all this flaunting made the average Mr. And Mrs Heartlander feel? Earning between them S$3500 a month, worrying about losing their jobs and CPF cuts, and having three kids and parents to support, think they may feel motivated and happier from such reports? I seriously doubt.
(To be fair to the newspaper in question, this recession, their journalists are not flaunting their wealth- so far.)
By default in Singapore, as with elsewhere, happiness has come to be defined in materialistic terms -- increasing gross national product, bigger flats and so on. But as Layard has argued, the exercise is self-defeating because other people are also fighting to increase their material wealth. Relatively, there is little change.
For all the need to adapt to the new economy with creativity and working smart rather than hard these days, now may be time for us as a society to try to define what we mean by “happiness”?
Now that things are better for most of us, isn’t it time to relook our values? Is it time for a “Refining Happiness” committee?
Let's start debating on what we, as a society, defines as “happiness”. Already it seems that things may be moving this way. According to a Institute of Policy Studies survey of Singapore voters a few years ago, contrary to popular belief, issues such as the cost of living and jobs were not what mattered most to them. The efficiency of government and fairness of government policy mattered more.
The contributor is Adrian Tan.
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2009/01/great-value-in-voluntary-help.html